The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 [1].

---

Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

• Featured article review/Virginia Tech massacre/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Ronnotel, Sfmammamia, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

I think that the article in its current state is not quite featured quality. Several sections are stub-quality, the timeline of victims contradicts the text, and the "See also" section seems to be composed of one relevant link and two off-the-wall links. Teh Rote (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't understand what "[s]everal sections are stub-quality" means, nor how that violates an FA criterion. See also—surely this is a ((sofixit))-type issue? As for how the timeline contradicts the text, specific examples would be helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to clarify on the sections issue.

  • The "Victims" section is two sentences long and most of its information is repeated elsewhere.
  • The "Gun politics debate" section is the same length. Quotations from notable activists would probably be necessary.
  • The "Settlement" section can probably be fleshed out. Also, it just doesn't read as well as the rest of the article.

  The "See also" section, I suppose I can work on that. I would just like input from some of the authors as to why said links were put there in the first place.

  Now, for the timeline. User:Aquila89 noted that "The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu." Their concern was voiced in June and still stands. Teh Rote (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the clarification and examples. Hopefully these issues (in addition to the alt text needs) can be addressed quickly so that the article can be kept without much fuss. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Almost nothing has been done since I listed this article. Not knowing what else to do, I removed the "See also" section myself, since the links didn't seem necessary. If this article is to remain at featured status, it needs work. Teh Rote (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that user:Auntieruth55 and I have been working on cleaning up the article. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do little more without reading up on it, and that I don't have time to do. Nonwiki life--called a dissertation--calls. I'm happy to go through and copy edit, but I don't have time to read much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are comprehensiveness, accuracy (self-contradictions). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and unaddressed concerns. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, next to nothing done to improve the article. Teh Rote (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold. I reviewed this article's prose and fixed some glaring issues; in one case, I removed (using invisible wiki text) a sentence that had no attribution/citation). There are contradictions between the order of the shootings in the box and the text. I suggest removing the box. "High quality sources" .... This is such a recent event, there is next to nothing scholarly written on it, but I submit that the appropriate quality available have been used, including the STate review panel report, and a variety of newspaper articles. I suggest contacting the original editor and asking if they want to tackle it again, before it is taken off FA status. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Hold, concerned about these kinds of delists (where it doesn't appear that reviewers have engaged the article), and wonder if anyone looked into the possibility of reverting to the featured version, or version some time after mainpage day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• that's a possibility, Sandy. I've also just gone through and reorganized some of the material, changed the heading on the chart, etc. I don't know how to do a revert that far back, so if that's the decision... Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was on the main page on April 16, 2008, which isn't so far back. The deal is to go back in article history and find the best version just after it was off the main page, after all vandalism and any pending talk issues are cleaned up. I can't offer to help just now because my main computer gave up the ghost, and I'm on a dinosaur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This article is still sourced to media accounts from more or less immediately after the event. Since then, a number of books have been written, none of which are used. See Lucinda Roy's No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech, Ben Agger's There is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech, Roland Lazenby's April 16th: Virginia Tech Remembers, and Douglas Kellner's Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre just to name a few. Rather than simply relying on contemporary medica accounts, an article like this needs to take advantage of more extensive accounts written with the benefit of hindsight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk • contribs) October 13, 2009
  • I briefly skimmed a few of these books, and I think there is definitely room for improvement for the sourcing in the Perpetrator section and in some of the response sections. Several of the books offered comparisons with Columbine and placed this attack in a broader setting with other school shootings; this is not handled well, if at all, in the article currently. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur, the use of some of these works would seem pretty much required to help give a broader less immediate perspective on the issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then my hold is conditioned upon some editor being willing to udpate the article to reflect new and better sources. Is anyone able to work on that? If not, pls disregard my hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like Auntieruth55 above, I can only commit to copyediting right now. Karanacs (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.